Ouch! Only 10 year before Pocket IE? You really are optimistic about MS!
Nah. There will be no PIE in ten years. It'll have been replaced with something Microsoft buys when they realise they can't get right themselves. That seems to be their the general strategy at the moment.

Nah. There will be no PIE in ten years. It'll have been replaced with something Microsoft buys when they realise they can't get right themselves. That seems to be their the general strategy at the moment.
Or maybe, unlike Apple, they will rely on an open 3rd party system to fix their deficiencies, like they always have done?
"Developers, developers, developers?"
Surur

"open 3rd party system" like "they have always done?"
You mean the system where they hide the API's they use to create their own system, then lose massive antitrust court cases and almost end up with the company split in half?
That "open" system?

"open 3rd party system" like "they have always done?"
You mean the system where they hide the API's they use to create their own system, then lose massive antitrust court cases and almost end up with the company split in half?
That "open" system?
No. The one where I can install any 3rd party app on my WM phone without any concern for my warranty. That system.
Surur

Oh. Because I thought you were referring to the open system where office document files are in a secret format and anyone who figures it out gets cease and desist letters.
Or maybe the open system where if you try to use dr-dos you get a bogus error message.
Or perhaps the open system where if you try to remove IE and replace it with firefox everything breaks for no reason.
But I guess that wasn't the open system to which you referred.
In all seriousness, though, if MS hadn't been smacked so hard by the federal gov't and europe, WM today would be way more locked down than iphone.
And if it ain't opensource, it ain't "open" as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Microsoft counts on 3rd parties the way they counted on Intel to steal Quicktime so they could create WMP, the way they counted on Spyglass to provide the raw material to allow 3rd party browser Netscape flourish on their system, the way they counted on sending other companies towards OS2 so they could fill the Office App void on Windows instead of 3rd party Lotus apps. And how's WordPerfect doing lately?
So, yeah, the inability for Microsoft to deliver a halfway decent desktop browser until Firefox 2 started to become a threat is sad, the inability to ever deliver an even usable mobile browser even a year after iPhone was introduced is rather pathetic. They, like Palm, should have had a killer 5 years ago.

In all seriousness, though, if MS hadn't been smacked so hard by the federal gov't and europe, WM today would be way more locked down than iphone.
That's pretty stupid. MS makes platforms, not appliances like Apple.
Surur

They make platforms? You can't be serious. What platform did they actually make? MS-DOS? nope, stolen. Windows? Nope, stolen. Ah, must be Windows ME.
Did I say "invent" platforms. I said MAKE platforms. The hard work of providing the developers with the tools and access they need to provide end-user products to their customers.
When MS made DRM, they licensed it to everyone. When Apple makes DRM, they keep it to themselves.
When MS makes an OS, they license it to every one.
When Apple makes an OS, you can only use it on their hardware.
You guys are being rabid AND slow today, arnt you.
Surur

What's your point? I didn't say Apple was "open." Far from it (though, in some areas they are more open than MS. They do base a lot of stuff on open source, like their entire bsd layer, darwin, webkit, etc.). If you want open, get linux or bsd. But don't say microsoft is "open." That's ridiculous.

First, my world is very gray. Neither MS nor Apple are "open." I don't know who is more open, but here are some facts:
1) MS has many times in the past purposely degraded the performance or functionality of third party software it didn't like
2) MS has many times in the past kept API's secret so as to give its own apps a leg up
3) MS has provided source code for almost nothing, and even when it does, it does so under strict licenses
4) MS won't let manufacturers who sell its OS sell pc's without its OS
5) windows genuine advantage. 'nuff said.
6) paladium
7) refuses to support standards (ooxml, .doc, html/css, etc.)
Apple:
1) requires its OS to run on its hardware
2) puts limitations on iphone 3rd party developers
3) open source kernel, bsd layer
4) open source web browser rendering engine that is about as standards-compliant as it comes
5) x11, cups, csh, etc.
6) on the desktop, like on windows, anyone can develop, though the only times apple has been accused of "sabotaging" third parties have been when apple actually competes by entering the space (not by purposely degrading the apps, hiding apis, etc.)
Neither of these companies is the paragon of "openness," but at least Apple isn't malicious about it. Tell WordPerfect, Novell, Netscape, DR, etc. how "open" Microsoft is.
PS: Apple is not my hero - I reserve that for folks like Dave Cutler.

Just because Apple decided to exploit open source software to replace their decrepit single-tasking OS does not make them open. If fact did they not rip even webkit from Konqueror (another browser that was integrated into the OS).
Lets look at recent history - MS licensed Exchange Activesync to Apple, and Apple refused to license Fairplay to Real.
Surur

I'm glad they refused to license it. The world needs less DRM.
I didn't say it makes them open. But it is a step in the open direction. If I want to use safari as an application platform, i have equal access to its underpinnings. Unlike IE.

I'm glad they refused to license it. The world needs less DRM.
I didn't say it makes them open. But it is a step in the open direction. If I want to use safari as an application platform, i have equal access to its underpinnings. Unlike IE.
Tell me where I can download the source code for an app apple did not rip from the open source community, like Itunes.
Surur

Darwin.
And they didn't "rip" anything. They actually contribute code back.
And your point is a distraction. As a developer who wants to develop for a platform, I want the source code for that platform to be open. I don't care who wrote it.
Microsoft hides everything so they can prevent others from competing on level ground.

Darwin.
And they didn't "rip" anything. They actually contribute code back.
And your point is a distraction. As a developer who wants to develop for a platform, I want the source code for that platform to be open. I don't care who wrote it.
Microsoft hides everything so they can prevent others from competing on level ground.
I can browse the API for WM without registering as a developer. I cant do the same for the iPhone, as we discovered on a number of occasions. There are millions of developers who developed for windows without seeing the source code. All one needs is a well-documented API.
Surur

But the API is NOT "well-documented!" That's the point! Microsoft nearly got split in two because they had a habit of hiding API functions and using them in their own programs (i.e.: office) while preventing others from using them.
There are millions of developers developing for windows, but Microsoft killed its browser and office competition through anti-competitive practices such as these, and such as actually putting secret code in the OS to detect certain 3rd party programs and make them not function properly.
If the code is open source, I can be sure that anything the vendor can do, I can do too.

Whenever you have nothing to say, you throw up distractions. For (i think) the third time, I am not saying Apple is open. I am only saying Microsoft is not, and, in fact, I doubt its any more open than Apple.
"Allowing" third parties to use your "infrastructure" while secretly using anti-competitive practices to make sure they can't succeed is not "open."

cmaier is correct. Microsoft's previous business model was to aggressively enter space, abuse monopoly powers to gain market share, and then use anti-competitive practices and tie ins to lock consumers in.
Luckily, it looks like Ray Ozzy may -- just may -- be changing that business model (or, more precisely, recognizing that world no longer allows it, and is beginning to punish it).

Whenever you have nothing to say, you throw up distractions. For (i think) the third time, I am not saying Apple is open. I am only saying Microsoft is not, and, in fact, I doubt its any more open than Apple.
But they are, which is the point. I have no idea why you doubt it. Just because Apple has open source license obligations does not make them open. They are very closed when it matters, when people actually WANT access to their technology
"Allowing" third parties to use your "infrastructure" while secretly using anti-competitive practices to make sure they can't succeed is not "open."
Stop living in the past.
Surur

Are you kidding? I'm supposed to believe that suddenly MS has seen the light, and provides open access to all competitors? They killed Java on windows, dr-dos, wordperfect, various competing office suites, novell, netscape, etc., but now they're open?
As for why I doubt it, I've enumerated multiple examples of their non-openness over the years. I agree, they SAY they are open. But much like George Bush says we are winning the war in Iraq, I have much reason to doubt it.
And, again, the way to ensure that they are open is to publish the darned source code. If everyone can see what the code is doing, everyone can be sure they aren't disadvantaged.
This is why android is "open" and WM and iphone are not. This is why Linux is open and windows and leopard are not. This is why webkit and gecko are open and IE's rendering engine is not. etc.

Are you kidding? I'm supposed to believe that suddenly MS has seen the light, and provides open access to all competitors? They killed Java on windows, dr-dos, wordperfect, various competing office suites, novell, netscape, etc., but now they're open?
As for why I doubt it, I've enumerated multiple examples of their non-openness over the years. I agree, they SAY they are open. But much like George Bush says we are winning the war in Iraq, I have much reason to doubt it.
And, again, the way to ensure that they are open is to publish the darned source code. If everyone can see what the code is doing, everyone can be sure they aren't disadvantaged.
This is why android is "open" and WM and iphone are not. This is why Linux is open and windows and leopard are not. This is why webkit and gecko are open and IE's rendering engine is not. etc.
Thats your definition of open. Just because an app is open source does not mean I can make everyone use my version of the code, can I? (like for example I can make everyone read my version of a wikipedia article, if just for a few seconds). There are always rules, and various degrees of openness.
Open means access, and for developers it means being able to write apps, not being able to disassemble the OS.
Android for example is going to be pretty closed, because apps will run in a java-like sandbox, vs real native apps. WM is open in the ways that matter, and ODM's get the full source code also.
Surur